Moral Damage Legal - Quant Dynamics
Select Page

6. Compensation for non-pecuniary damage is intended to compensate or compensate for psychological situations, since the difficult situation has already ended at the time of payment. 2.According to Schneider`s classification, feelings are sensitive to localization and can and should also be tested, although physical and biological damage sometimes lead to moral damage, which is always psychological in nature. The issue of moral prejudice is perhaps one of the most difficult to address, and it is even more difficult to develop criteria on how it should be assessed. The purpose of this article is to show that the determination of moral damage is an objective task. Our judges and magistrates are faced with the commendable and controversial work of calculating “monetary compensation” for damages that the doctrine calls non-financial, meaning that they are not subject to economic evaluation. What also motivates us is to try to establish some basic criteria in accordance with the standards of psychiatry and psychology by integrating them into these sciences. How do we calculate the amount we have to compensate when feelings, affections, beliefs, decency, honor, reputation, etc. are affected? Since most people would not change their lives for money, we cannot think that moral reparation is infinite, even if this reparation does not “repair” in the strict sense of the word, since the deceased could never be resurrected.

The norm set forth in article 1644 of the Argentine Civil Code clearly stipulates that the amount of moral damage is determined by the judge taking into account the following factors: The International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) ruled in the Diallo case that “moral prejudice may be established even in the absence of specific evidence”.55 arbitral tribunals, But on several occasions, they have held that moral claims for damages are unfounded or unproven. 56 In assessing claims, investment tribunals tend to rely on the “balancing of probabilities” standard.57 The legal history of moral damages is long and includes many decisions. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision in Honda v. Keays and the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Galea v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. are decisions generally cited by lawyers to establish general principles of moral prejudice. It is interesting to note that, in the past, the courts have extended the notice period to compensate for moral damages. Since the Supreme Court of Canada`s 2008 decision in Honda v. Keays, courts now award moral damages separately. Does this mean that there is no place for moral compensation in the crimes of culpable murder? In our view, if we apply the analogy, since we are under the aegis of civil law, which allows us to use it, and since the effect on emotions and feelings is due to various stimuli, we would conclude that it is possible, even if the law does not directly determine it. We argue that the way the section is drafted is an example and not restrictive, which is reflected in the legislation as an example of the criteria that the judge must follow in determining the amount of moral damage.

This may include the rights of those affected by the death of a father, son, brother, etc. The first question is what was considered by the parties at the time of entering into the contract or, as stated in paragraph 44 of [Fidler v. Sun Life Insurance Company of Canada, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2006 SCC 30]: “What did the contract promise?” According to its wording, the employment contract is subject to dismissal or the payment of damages instead of dismissal, irrespective of the usual psychological effects of that decision. At the time of conclusion of the contract, psychological damage resulting from termination would normally not be taken into account, as termination is a clear legal possibility. Normal difficulties and hurt feelings resulting from dismissal cannot be compensated. To date, we are aware of only one ISDS arbitral tribunal that has awarded compensation for moral prejudice without reference to these two criteria,52 and one intergovernmental case.53 However, in 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada in Honda Canada made significant changes to the way damages for bad faith dismissal are awarded. The types of bad faith behaviour of employers, which can result in moral prejudice, have remained unchanged. However, the Court has modified the analytical approach taken by the courts in determining the assessment of non-pecuniary damage. Damages for dismissal in bad faith (also known as moral damages) are no longer awarded by an arbitrary extension of the notice period.

Instead, non-material damages are awarded for quantifiable psychological distress only if it were reasonably foreseeable that the employee would suffer psychological distress as a result of the manner in which the employer dismissed the employee. Damages are an amount set by the court to reflect the actual psychological distress of the terminated employee. The court clarified that a dismissed employee is not entitled to compensation for “normal charges and injured feelings” resulting from the termination of the employment relationship. In international law, the right to invoke moral damage is enshrined in article 31, paragraph 2, of the articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrongful activities, according to which the obligation of a State to make reparation fully for the injury caused by the internationally wrongful act includes “any material or moral damage”. The commentary to this article states that moral prejudice includes “individual pain and suffering, loss of loved ones or personal affront related to interference with one`s home or privacy”. [1] In the following sections, we will discuss how moral damage claims have been handled by arbitral tribunals in investment arbitration proceedings and the evaluation criteria they generally apply. Moral or serious harm can be seen as a warning to employers of what may happen if they misbehave towards the employee during and after the termination. Therefore, in order to avoid an increased risk of liability for moral or serious damage, employers should pay attention to their behaviour in order to avoid any breach of the duty of good faith and loyalty in the manner of dismissal. Being false, misleading, overly insensitive or rude to employees significantly increases the risk of moral harm to the employer.

However, arbitral tribunals were fairly unanimous that moral damages can only be awarded in exceptional circumstances[9] requiring a high threshold,[10] making the award of moral damages rare in practice.

Open chat
escríbeme
¡Hola!
¿Cómo te puedo ayudar?